Where Complexity Belongs

[stonehead]

Not sure where in all that i suggested the kind of gameplay you seened so worried about, so now i am even more preplexed by your earlier statements.
Different aspects, as i said in one of the posts you quoted IIRC, have different appropriate consequences.

What are these differenct consequences? That's the part I haven't seen. It's one thing to say they will have appropriate consequences, and it's another to illustrate how those consequences are meaningfully different. If you described the differences, then I missed it.

I think the comparison to social checks is apt. A character could mechanically fail a diplomacy check because in the narrative they stuttered, or because their fly was down, or because they accidentally claimed to be a jelly donut. Most games don't differentiate mechanically between them though, because the end result is the same: your audience is unconvinced. Some crunchy games do differentiate between "making an impression" and "making a request" so diplomacy involves two different checks. That's because the end results are different (eg. they agree to your request but don't like you, and they like you but don't agree to your request)

I apologize that I came across as rude. That was not my intention. I think it would help to give examples of how failing at the components step would differ from failing at the focus step. That's the part that I don't understand.

 

[JohnSnow]

I've really only resonated high complexity when I want a tactical combat sub-system that is full of meaningful, balanced choices in both building the character and in choosing your actions in the combat (and I'd probably prefer a computer RPG doing the brunt of the effort). Pathfinder 2e stands out time and again as I try other 4e-Successor games like Lancer, Icon and Gubat Banwa. The 3 Action economy with the penalty to just spam Attacks is pretty huge. Though I think PF2e should sell itself as a grittier premise when you get knocked unconscious and brought up, your next turn may look like picking up your weapon, standing up and getting Reactive Strike'd in the face - it doesn't always match that heroic style it often sells. A lot of spells don't have that show-stopping presence of Icon, 4e or Draw Steel, but instead every round of combat, I feel like I can looking through my options.

I find it interesting that Pathfinder 2e, Nimble and a few other games have figured out the sweet spot for actions in a single round is 3, with a scaling discouragement for trying to just attack or spell cast repeatedly. I think DC20's 4 is too many, and I think it's important that you have viable options for doing other things in a round.

Savage Worlds essentially does the same thing, although it says you can move and attack, but choosing to take actions (other than moving) more than once means you take an escalating penalty to all actions. I rather like the "the first one is at full competency, and later actions incur an escalating penalty."

More broadly, I'd say that complexity needs to be implemented in such a way that choices matter and you ideally want to avoid "false choices" - i.e. choices that are actually traps. As an example, if a character chooses to do something other than just attack in combat, there should be a meaningful benefit to doing so, commensurate with the risk they take. Choosing to forego damaging an opponent in favor of disarming them is only really a viable alternative if they can't quickly re-arm themselves at zero cost. This, by the way, goes to a whole rant I have about opportunity attacks based largely on my experience studying martial arts in general and swordplay specifically.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I find it interesting that Pathfinder 2e, Nimble and a few other games have figured out the sweet spot for actions in a single round is 3, with a scaling discouragement for trying to just attack or spell cast repeatedly. I think DC20's 4 is too many, and I think it's important that you have viable options for doing other things in a round.

Savage Worlds essentially does the same thing, although it says you can move and attack, but choosing to take actions (other than moving) more than once means you take an escalating penalty to all actions. I rather like the "the first one is at full competency, and later actions incur an escalating penalty."

Though that only works because the penalty applies to all actions. If you only penalize successive actions it creates an incentive to roll a lot of pointless (because they'll be progressively less likely to get anything done) rolls.

More broadly, I'd say that complexity needs to be implemented in such a way that choices matter and you ideally want to avoid "false choices" - i.e. choices that are actually traps. As an example, if a character chooses to do something other than just attack in combat, there should be a meaningful benefit to doing so, commensurate with the risk they take. Choosing to forego damaging an opponent in favor of disarming them is only really a viable alternative if they can't quickly re-arm themselves at zero cost. This, by the way, goes to a whole rant I have about opportunity attacks based largely on my experience studying martial arts in general and swordplay specifically.

This is why I finally concluded I didn't like Mutants and Masterminds; there are a lot of options for doing things other than damage, but a combination of factors ends up making them a waste of time most often, so they're things that look good, but mostly aren't.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

I find it interesting that Pathfinder 2e, Nimble and a few other games have figured out the sweet spot for actions in a single round is 3, with a scaling discouragement for trying to just attack or spell cast repeatedly. I think DC20's 4 is too many, and I think it's important that you have viable options for doing other things in a round.

Yeah, and it makes Slow and Quickened effects at a very particular amount of power increasing or decreasing by 1.

Though in Divinity, you can manage a lot more Action Points when it's a CRPG. I couldn't imagine doing that manually. Though honestly, I don't know if I'd enjoy PF2e without our Foundry setup that handles a lot of the various bonuses incredibly quickly. In many ways, it's basically a hybrid CRPG/TTRPG during combat encounters. One that is easy enough for the GM to quickly design encounters which I think CRPGs often have too much detail to allow an easy GM Mode.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What are these differenct consequences? That's the part I haven't seen. It's one thing to say they will have appropriate consequences, and it's another to illustrate how those consequences are meaningfully different. If you described the differences, then I missed it.

I think the comparison to social checks is apt. A character could mechanically fail a diplomacy check because in the narrative they stuttered, or because their fly was down, or because they accidentally claimed to be a jelly donut. Most games don't differentiate mechanically between them though, because the end result is the same: your audience is unconvinced. Some crunchy games do differentiate between "making an impression" and "making a request" so diplomacy involves two different checks. That's because the end results are different (eg. they agree to your request but don't like you, and they like you but don't agree to your request)

I apologize that I came across as rude. That was not my intention. I think it would help to give examples of how failing at the components step would differ from failing at the focus step. That's the part that I don't understand.

Okay, so lets use an example of binding a demon while it is trying to emerge and kill you all. Understand that this stuff depends on the specifics of the situation, so there is guidance to be given but there is no chart of "circle fail: mark 1 stress" or whatever.

The circle - since it is a binding ritual the GM might spend an adversity to say that the demon has an advantage to attempts to get free of the circle because it isnt perfect. On a cursed failure the circle would simple not do its job. The demon isnt spatially restrained.

The tools - a tool might break, causing you to have to channel power with your body, taking Injury every time you make a subsequent check.

Other things that could happen would be more scene dependent like depending on the demons nature, and the gm always has the ability to just introduce an unrelated complication. It is very contextual.

 

[Tigris]

Yeah, and it makes Slow and Quickened effects at a very particular amount of power increasing or decreasing by 1.

Though in Divinity, you can manage a lot more Action Points when it's a CRPG. I couldn't imagine doing that manually. Though honestly, I don't know if I'd enjoy PF2e without our Foundry setup that handles a lot of the various bonuses incredibly quickly. In many ways, it's basically a hybrid CRPG/TTRPG during combat encounters. One that is easy enough for the GM to quickly design encounters which I think CRPGs often have too much detail to allow an easy GM Mode.

Well slow and quickened effects are hugely affected by the multiattack malus in PF2 though. Losing 1 action is not really bad if you can still do 2 attacks, like it does almost nothing. Even losing 2 actionsis not as bad as it sounds since the first attack has like 60% of the damage of a target.


This can be quite different in other games. Also other games which have 4 actions, and work well like Emberwind have most attacks costing 2 actions. While more utility things like movement costs 1. This way it works well and does not even really need any multi attack penalty

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I feel way too many games are designed by GMs... Many inconvenient things often feel its just thete because some GMs like it.

This is a bit sad especially since normally GMs only are like 1/5 of the players playing a game.


Would love to see some games made purely by players. Then maybe more players might even want to be GM because then thr GM role is made to be less antifun for people who normally dont want to GM.

I don't think having a game designed "purely by players" would be practical. Deliberately looking at rules and rule design from a player's POV is important, however.

There is a very strong skew toward the GM point of view in common gaming advice and on fora like this one. That's something I've noticed much more than the rule artifacts of game designers being primarily GMs.

I have perhaps been fortunate in that most of my players have been GMs of their own games. Knowing that a player has GM experience has a good effect on the social dynamic (IME and IMHO) and that extends to treating all players as having been GMs of their own games, even when they haven't.

 

[Staffan]

Well slow and quickened effects are hugely affected by the multiattack malus in PF2 though. Losing 1 action is not really bad if you can still do 2 attacks, like it does almost nothing. Even losing 2 actionsis not as bad as it sounds since the first attack has like 60% of the damage of a target.

PF2 has lots of monsters who lose a lot of power if they lose one action. Many have two-action attacks, or a one-action attack with a rider that uses up another action. Removing one action means the monster can't move and also do one of these. Some even have three-action attacks, like a whirlwind attack or something like that.

As an example, a dire wolf has a bite attack (one action) with the ability to spend an action to automatically grab the target if it hits. So that's two actions. It also has a "Worry" special ability that uses an action, that deals damage to a grabbed target without a roll on the part of the wolf. So the ideal turn for a dire wolf is bite, grab, worry. Removing one action from it is a pretty big disadvantage for it.

 

[stonehead]

I don't think having a game designed "purely by players" would be practical. Deliberately looking at rules and rule design from a player's POV is important, however.

There is a very strong skew toward the GM point of view in common gaming advice and on fora like this one. That's something I've noticed much more than the rule artifacts of game designers being primarily GMs.

I have perhaps been fortunate in that most of my players have been GMs of their own games. Knowing that a player has GM experience has a good effect on the social dynamic (IME and IMHO) and that extends to treating all players as having been GMs of their own games, even when they haven't.

A game designed "purely by players" probably wouldn't end up being very good. I would still love to see one, because I think it would be super interesting to compare it to a conventional system.

I agree with @Tigris's original point though that many systems and modules are a bit too GM focused. I've seen modules filled with flavor text that the players would have no realistic way to discover. Bestiaries are full of monsters that would be fun to play as, but boring to play against. Lots of "realism" features like hunger, equipment durability, or overland travel are fun to design, but not very fun to play with.

A game designed "purely by forever GMs" wouldn't be very good either.

 

[Tigris]

I don't think having a game designed "purely by players" would be practical. Deliberately looking at rules and rule design from a player's POV is important, however.

There is a very strong skew toward the GM point of view in common gaming advice and on fora like this one. That's something I've noticed much more than the rule artifacts of game designers being primarily GMs.

I have perhaps been fortunate in that most of my players have been GMs of their own games. Knowing that a player has GM experience has a good effect on the social dynamic (IME and IMHO) and that extends to treating all players as having been GMs of their own games, even when they haven't.

A game designed "purely by players" probably wouldn't end up being very good. I would still love to see one, because I think it would be super interesting to compare it to a conventional system.

I agree with @Tigris's original point though that many systems and modules are a bit too GM focused. I've seen modules filled with flavor text that the players would have no realistic way to discover. Bestiaries are full of monsters that would be fun to play as, but boring to play against. Lots of "realism" features like hunger, equipment durability, or overland travel are fun to design, but not very fun to play with.

A game designed "purely by forever GMs" wouldn't be very good either.

There are tons of games only created by GMs and they work 13th age as one recent example. Saying players cant design a game, is really just elitism.

Boardgames are way better in gamedesign than RPGs overall and they are designed by players. And no a GM who also plays is not a player, they still have way too often the GM mindset. I really dont think that people who GM regularily can think from the players POV, it always feels more like "what do I think my players should want to do" point of view.


GMs who play as players are always the most annoying players for non GM players because they cather to much for the fun of the GM and at the same time try to grab the attention all the time because they are used to having more attention when they are GMing themselves.


We have a problem with not having enough GMs, and part of this problem is that games are designed by GMs and not by typical players, because GMing is always similar. I would never want to GM, because the way most games are designed for GMs to be god and I really dont like this kind of elitism and dont want myself to be associated with it in any form.


In the game I am designing (as a pure player), the GM is just a regular player like any other as well, not an "elite".